IT'S race Week !!! United States Grand Prix Indianapolis Motor Speedway 03.20.2022

Congrats to the Ferrari fans, this is almost a historic achievement—1, 2, FL, but most importantly—they didn't screw up during the Pit Stop.

Only one thing remains unclear to me:
Before the SC, toward the end of the race, Max Verstappen went into the Pit Stop—OK, that makes sense for him. He loses second place, but with fresh tires, he can likely reclaim it. Plus, there’s a chance Charles Leclerc might drop back, potentially giving him another shot at fighting for first. So, it's the risk of losing one spot—not that it matters much to him whether he's 2nd or 3rd—but the potential loss could be greater.
Charles Leclerc—doesn't enter the Pit Stop—OK, no need. He just reported the tires were fine and he could finish on them without issues. Max Verstappen has no chance of catching him (He did pit later, but only because the SC gave him enough time).
What I don't get: After Max Verstappen, Carlos Sainz enters the Pit Stop. For what reason???
-His tire situation is the same as Charles Leclerc's, so he can easily finish the race.
-He secured a very solid 2nd place—it's true Max Verstappen might catch him, but will he overtake? Either way, he has a better chance of holding onto that gifted 2nd place than trying to win it on track.
-By entering the Pit Stop, he risked dropping to 3rd (Sergio Perez).
In my view, it was a completely unnecessary move. He risked 3rd place for no visible reason. Luckily for him, Red Bull Racing dropped out, so it didn't cost him.
Was this a team failure, or have I missed something or reached the wrong conclusion?

I’m pretty sure Max was running about 2 seconds faster than Charles Leclerc during that out-lap/first lap stretch.
So, if you ask me, the main reason they headed for the Pit Stop was just to swap out for some fresh rubber.

Amanda Kelly said:I’m pretty sure Max was running about 2 seconds faster than Charles Leclerc during that out-lap/first lap stretch.
So, if you ask me, the main reason they headed for the Pit Stop was just to swap out for some fresh rubber.

Everything makes sense regarding Max Verstappen, but I don't get Carlos Sainz at all...

As someone already pointed out, Carlos Sainz was clearly pretty frustrated after the race.
Fast forward to the next day, and he’s giving a detailed breakdown of why being 0.3 seconds per lap slower than Charles Leclerc matters way more than the (temporary) luck of grabbing P2 at the end of the Bahrain Grand Prix.
Personally, I’m actually glad to see that kind of mindset from Carlos Sainz. It shows he's hungry. I'm expecting progress. 🙂
So, just imagine what happens when Ferrari actually gets its act together!? 🙂

Nathan Doyle4 said:Congrats to the Ferrari fans, this is almost a historic achievement—1, 2, FL, but most importantly—they didn't screw up during the Pit Stop.

Only one thing remains unclear to me:
Before the SC, toward the end of the race, Max Verstappen went into the Pit Stop—OK, that makes sense for him. He loses second place, but with fresh tires, he can likely reclaim it. Plus, there’s a chance Charles Leclerc might drop back, potentially giving him another shot at fighting for first. So, it's the risk of losing one spot—not that it matters much to him whether he's 2nd or 3rd—but the potential loss could be greater.
Charles Leclerc—doesn't enter the Pit Stop—OK, no need. He just reported the tires were fine and he could finish on them without issues. Max Verstappen has no chance of catching him (He did pit later, but only because the SC gave him enough time).
What I don't get: After Max Verstappen, Carlos Sainz enters the Pit Stop. For what reason???
-His tire situation is the same as Charles Leclerc's, so he can easily finish the race.
-He secured a very solid 2nd place—it's true Max Verstappen might catch him, but will he overtake? Either way, he has a better chance of holding onto that gifted 2nd place than trying to win it on track.
-By entering the Pit Stop, he risked dropping to 3rd (Sergio Perez).
In my view, it was a completely unnecessary move. He risked 3rd place for no visible reason. Luckily for him, Red Bull Racing dropped out, so it didn't cost him.
Was this a team failure, or have I missed something or reached the wrong conclusion?

I can't quite recall the exact gap between him and Sergio Perez at that moment. It might have been tight enough that they opted for an earlier pit stop just to shut down the threat of a Perez undercut.

Raymond Anderson4 said:I can't quite recall the exact gap between him and Sergio Perez at that moment. It might have been tight enough that they opted for an earlier pit stop just to shut down the threat of a Perez undercut.

If I recall correctly, Sergio Perez pitted around lap 35, while Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz didn't go in until lap 44.
So, I doubt it was a move to defend against Sergio Perez. Perhaps they were just overly optimistic thinking Carlos Sainz could overtake Max Verstappen? Even if that was the case, it would have been smarter to keep Carlos Sainz on track with decent tires in a clearly superior car and just settle for second place.

Regardless, it seemed logical for Charles Leclerc to either shadow Max Verstappen into the pits immediately or stay out until the end. (I was starting to fear they'd call Charles Leclerc in just two laps after Max Verstappen, which would have been a disaster—thankfully the SC saved them from making a total mess of it.)

Carlos Sainz's pit stop makes zero sense to me (maybe for an FL, but the bigger prize was securing second, which he likely could have defended).

EDIT: Found the chart—at the time of the last change, Carlos Sainz was on mediums that were 11 laps old. He easily could have gone to the end. That was probably Charles Leclerc's plan too, staying out on 13-14 lap old mediums (assuming the strategy was to finish on those since they didn't match Max Verstappen's pace).

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...hrain/9167920/

swiftmaker12 said:Just to refresh everyone's memory here

Back in 2017 and 2018, Ferrari had a championship-caliber car, and Sebastian Vettel was arguably the best driver on the grid
But they managed to mess it up during those two years through sheer incompetence
Sebastian went through the exact same thing Alonso did in 2010 and 2012
Between the Ferrari team decisions on the pit wall and their overall strategy, they were basically built to lose
When you finally get a real shot at winning after years of nothing, decades of losing become a massive weight—you end up choking right when it's a layup
It was pretty much the same story for Alonso in those two years
And don't even get me started on the Yankees
If the Yankees started a season with a 15-point lead, they'd find a way to screw it up for the manager and the whole front office
That's exactly how Ferrari will play it this year

They'll end up right back where they started. After four or five races, once Mercedes and Red Bull pass them, they'll just sit there looking completely baffled by their own failure

Everything checks out...
But honestly, the last time Ferrari had a season opener this good was 2004, before that 2000, and before that 1953. That's about it.😳
It doesn't happen often for a team to sweep the first race with a 1-2 finish, Pole Position, and FL...
Even if Mercedes-AMG got us used to seeing that kind of dominance.

This smells like a massive year for Ferrari. They had the car for pole and the win, grabbed the FL, were lightning fast in the pits, and didn't mess up the tactics—in fact, they actually reacted when they needed to.

To be honest, it’s weird as hell. It’s like they haven't even changed their tactical crew or their pit crew.🤔
Yet, somehow, everything is suddenly running flawlessly at every single level.

Feel free to set me straight, but this is honestly the first time in ten years I’ve actually seen you praise Ferrari’s performance across the board during a race weekend.

Jason Campbell70 said:Being a Ferrari strategist was easy this Sunday.
The whole plan basically boiled down to shadowing Red Bull.
Max Verstappen pits, Charles Leclerc pits.
Just repeat that until the checkered flag, hold the position, and maintain the gap.

It was safe play, which they could afford because their car is simply faster. Honestly, if they had needed to, I think they could have pushed their race pace even harder.

On the flip side, when you're stuck with a car that's a second slower, you start pulling those Mercedes-style gambles with the hard tires.
Because if you stick to traditional tactics and just shadow the competition, you aren't going to gain anything.

As for the pit crew performance? Nothing to complain about there.
They absolutely outclassed Red Bull at their own game.

Exactly, but that’s been Ferrari's recurring headache. They'd nail one thing and then inevitably screw up the pit stop or trip over themselves trying to cover the other driver.
If they actually manage to pull it off for one driver, they almost always blow it with the second one...

I can't even remember the last time I saw Ferrari cover a move perfectly in real-time for both drivers while also pulling pit stops a full second faster than their rival—especially when that rival is none other than the lightning-fast Red Bull Racing.

gentlecobra23 said:Mick messed up during qualifying; he absolutely should have made it into Q3, no question about it.

Then in the race, after the safety car, his pace just completely fell off a cliff compared to everyone else because of engine issues... Aside from that, he drove a decent enough race, even if he was stuck way down in the pack for most of it.

The first race is always chaos. You really have to wait a few rounds before you can tell who is actually where. Even Fernando Alonso was written off at the start of last season, yet he ended up finishing ahead of Esteban Ocon...

Besides, look at the grid as a whole—the older, more experienced drivers seem to be adapting to the new cars much better than the younger crew. Mick is qualifying quite well and has shown steady progress throughout the season... in that regard, he's actually pretty similar to Ricciardo...

Sorry, toddlers...
Mick was nowhere to be found. He’s the only one who didn't swap tires during the SC, which is the only reason he ended up high in the standings in the first place...
And surprise, surprise—after the restart, he had to hit three pit stops just because everyone behind him had fresh rubber while he was out there struggling on dead tires...

It’s the exact same disaster they pulled with the Luxury mess in Abu Dhabi. Terrible team strategy using old, cold tires for a restart after an SC is a recipe for losing positions. It always happens, and it always will...
Ghunter should have told the Race Director to shove it and demanded the SC stay out for at least another 10 laps 😁 then Mick wouldn't have had those engine problems and would've finished tenth. 😍

Raymond Anderson4 said:I was actually talking about the race itself. Charles Leclerc drove a really solid race—though I wouldn't go as far as saying "excellent," since he was in a Red Bull Racing car that only had one real shot at an undercut, which ultimately failed.
Ford beat out Mercedes, who struggled, and Red Bull Racing, who both completely fell apart.

True, Mercedes was nowhere to be seen (but hey, their problem...) and yeah, the Red Bull gave up.
But regardless of the Red Bull dying, I didn't see any real threat from Max Verstappen during the closing stages of the race. It’s not like Leclerc "escaped" or got handed a gift win because Max couldn't keep up.
If anything, I think Max Verstappen could have easily overtaken Carlos Sainz before even touching Leclerc...

As for Sergio Perez, his tire strategy was a total disaster. He stood zero chance against Carlos Sainz. That absolute nonsense of running a shorter second stint on Mediums instead of the first one being on Softs?
That decision would have cost Sergio Perez way more positions fighting against the Luxury cars at the end than he ever had a chance of catching Carlos Sainz. Honestly, the SC was his only lifeline. Without the SC, he would've sunk like a stone through the standings.

Nathan Doyle4 said:If I recall correctly, Sergio Perez pitted around lap 35, while Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz didn't go in until lap 44.
So, I doubt it was a move to defend against Sergio Perez. Perhaps they were just overly optimistic thinking Carlos Sainz could overtake Max Verstappen? Even if that was the case, it would have been smarter to keep Carlos Sainz on track with decent tires in a clearly superior car and just settle for second place.

Regardless, it seemed logical for Charles Leclerc to either shadow Max Verstappen into the pits immediately or stay out until the end. (I was starting to fear they'd call Charles Leclerc in just two laps after Max Verstappen, which would have been a disaster—thankfully the SC saved them from making a total mess of it.)

Carlos Sainz's pit stop makes zero sense to me (maybe for an FL, but the bigger prize was securing second, which he likely could have defended).

EDIT: Found the chart—at the time of the last change, Carlos Sainz was on mediums that were 11 laps old. He easily could have gone to the end. That was probably Charles Leclerc's plan too, staying out on 13-14 lap old mediums (assuming the strategy was to finish on those since they didn't match Max Verstappen's pace).

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...hrain/9167920/

You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Wait, I just saw this video claiming the FIA gave every single team access to their fuel supply system for this season. Isn't there a catch there? Like, maybe everyone was already cutting corners a bit, and now suddenly Ferrari is the only one "caught red-handed" 😬. And voilà—now out of nowhere, Ferrari has the best engine on the grid. I don't know, something feels a little fishy about it 😬

Amy Castillo4 said:Feel free to set me straight, but this is honestly the first time in ten years I’ve actually seen you praise Ferrari’s performance across the board during a race weekend.

Honestly, even I’m surprised by how much I’m agreeing, but damn, they actually gave me reasons to be impressed. 🙏
Usually, when I watch races, I’m glued to LT more than the actual broadcast just so I can laugh at Ferrari’s tactical stupidity...
But this time, I was sitting there stunned because they didn't screw up a single thing. They didn't even pull the kind of basic blunders you'd expect from any decent team, let alone them...

I spent the whole race watching them, waiting for that moment where they'd mess up, where they'd go 😁 now they'll 👋, only for them to react perfectly every single time. 🙏
Seriously, I can't even remember the last time I saw them pull that off—and I don't just mean in the last decade...

If they had acted like this back in the days of Alonso or Sebastian Vettel, they probably would've walked away with four more drivers' titles, and honestly, they could've snatched some constructors' championships too...

stormybadger8 said:True, Mercedes was nowhere to be seen (but hey, their problem...) and yeah, the Red Bull gave up.
But regardless of the Red Bull dying, I didn't see any real threat from Max Verstappen during the closing stages of the race. It’s not like Leclerc "escaped" or got handed a gift win because Max couldn't keep up.
If anything, I think Max Verstappen could have easily overtaken Carlos Sainz before even touching Leclerc...

As for Sergio Perez, his tire strategy was a total disaster. He stood zero chance against Carlos Sainz. That absolute nonsense of running a shorter second stint on Mediums instead of the first one being on Softs?
That decision would have cost Sergio Perez way more positions fighting against the Luxury cars at the end than he ever had a chance of catching Carlos Sainz. Honestly, the SC was his only lifeline. Without the SC, he would've sunk like a stone through the standings.

Look, if Max had any chance to snatch it from Leclerc before that breakdown happened, he would've taken it. Sure, maybe Max couldn't go full throttle because his brakes were overheating like crazy, but that doesn't change the reality... Leclerc just outclassed him in those wheel-to-wheel battles. Every single time Max actually had the skill to make a move, he just couldn't pull it off.

But he didn't. Plain and simple.

And here’s the real kicker for their future matchups: Leclerc proved he can play just as dirty and aggressive as Max. Last season, when they were trading paint, it usually ended up hurting Lewis more than anyone else... but now? It's the exact opposite. Max and Leclerc are going head-to-head, and Leclerc is sitting pretty with a 26-point lead in the championship fight.

stormybadger8 said:Exactly, but that’s been Ferrari's recurring headache. They'd nail one thing and then inevitably screw up the pit stop or trip over themselves trying to cover the other driver.
If they actually manage to pull it off for one driver, they almost always blow it with the second one...

I can't even remember the last time I saw Ferrari cover a move perfectly in real-time for both drivers while also pulling pit stops a full second faster than their rival—especially when that rival is none other than the lightning-fast Red Bull Racing.

Yes and no.

Why yes? Because Ferrari (specifically Leclerc) defended his position on track every single time, and ultimately, he won. You can't argue with that.

Why no? Because Red Bull was the one who made the first move. They made the right call, using a perfectly timed undercut to snatch over three seconds in a single lap. They closed the gap to within 3.7 seconds, and at one point, they actually overtook him on track. And if I remember correctly, they did it despite having a slower pit stop.

Ferrari stayed completely passive. They lacked the nerve to strike first—which is somewhat understandable—but if they hadn't had the edge in race pace, they would have lost that tactical battle easily.

It’s reminiscent of what we saw with Mercedes in previous seasons.
When they had the superior car, everything worked out and they cruised to victory.
But whenever their rivals were neck-and-neck or even faster, the Mercedes strategists often seemed to lose their way entirely.

Honestly, being out front is just a tactical nightmare sometimes... it puts all the pressure on you because the driver behind and the pit wall basically get to call the shots on when to dive in.
What kind of advantage would Ferrari and Charles Leclerc have actually gained if they'd just pulled the trigger on the pit stop before Max Verstappen?

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Is it really that bad? 🙂

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Fine, let's say that's how it went, though I doubt they could have caught Carlos Sainz so easily since he only had 11-lap old mediums while they were 20 laps behind him (so lap 43, no SC yet; Max Verstappen might have caught him in the remaining 14 laps, but certainly not Sergio Perez). At that moment, it looked like an unnecessary risk to second or third place.

But if that's the case, and if what you said—"two laps later wouldn't have made any sense"—is true, then Charles Leclerc had no intention of pitting! Because he didn't pit on lap 44 when it actually made sense. By lap 45, he couldn't afford to, or he would've dropped behind Max Verstappen. By lap 46, he finally had the luxury, because before the SC, there was a VSC where Max Verstappen wasn't allowed to extend his lead (and eventually had to anyway, otherwise he'd have Max Verstappen breathing down his neck on fresh tires after the SC)

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Yeah, that makes sense now, but back then there hadn't even been a VSC, let alone an SC...☕

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Whether Michael Schumacher or the Haas F1 Team messed up is debatable. I have no idea who exactly failed to pit when everyone else did. But let me say this again—Sainz pitted before the Virtual Safety Car came out, and at that moment, it looked completely unnecessary. He was on medium tires with a 20-second gap and only 14 laps left in a reliable car. Why take that risk?...

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Well, I certainly hope we see plenty more moments like that this year...
If McLaren can actually get their act together—and judging by what I've seen, they have a massive amount of work to do—Mercedes will definitely step up and have a stellar season...

stormybadger8 said:You're way off on that one...
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ummary_v01.pdf

Sainz was called in perfectly right after Max Verstappen and Perez, who both pitted on lap 43. He went in just one lap later, which secured his position and gave him fresh rubber...
Honestly, under Ferrari's old tactics, trying to cover Max Verstappen and Perez by pitting Charles Leclerc while leaving Sainz out on mediums would have been pure idiocy. Pitting two laps later wouldn't have made sense anymore...
And let's be real, anyone would be a sitting duck on a restart after the SC with two Red Bull Racing cars breathing down their neck on Softs. He would've lost his spot to both of them, if not to Mercedes too.☕
There's no way he defends that spot against anyone, let alone Perez, much less Max Verstappen—not when there's a solid chance he loses it to George Russell too...
If they'd left him out, they would've screwed him. He would've ended up like Michael Schumacher on old mediums against everyone else on fresh Softs...

What really surprises me about Ferrari's strategy is that specific timing.
They played it perfectly by covering Perez with Sainz (and even giving him a shot at Max Verstappen), then calling Charles Leclerc in. Charles Leclerc had the luxury of staying out a lap or two longer because of the gap he had to Max Verstappen before the SC...
Look, Sainz didn't have that luxury, and this time Ferrari didn't just toss the second driver under the bus like they usually do with "we don't care about you." They actually took a risk with their lead driver just to squeeze the absolute maximum out of both cars...
It was a massive gamble, though. For it to work, the pit stops had to be flawless and lightning-fast, especially Charles Leclerc's... so they definitely rolled the dice, but they clearly trusted their crew to nail it.
I'd say they don't just have the pace; they clearly have the confidence, too...

In the past, it was always just about the win and whoever was in front, while the second driver was just an afterthought...

This time, Ferrari had a clear strategy to get both drivers as high up as possible without hesitation.

Red Bull Racing basically just used Sergio Perez as a sacrificial lamb to see if their strategy would actually hold up.

Nothing new...